PDA

View Full Version : Flubs are screwed


gobears1987
01-04-2005, 10:18 PM
I've been sick of hearing Flub fans at my school saying they have the best pitchers in baseball. I fired back today asking who their 5th starter would be this year. I pointed out most pitchers worth anything have been signed.

I got no reply.

I moved on to asking about closer and one person said Kyle Farnsworth and he was actually glad telling me how much better he is than Shingo. I about **** my pants laughing at that one. I asked about the rest of the bullpen and got no reply.

Does anyone smell a real bad season for the Flubs? I bet their 5th starter situation will resemble ours last year, but add that with a lack of a bullpen, which wasn't our problem last year.

MUsoxfan
01-04-2005, 10:22 PM
I refer you to this (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=43384) thread

NowBatting19
01-04-2005, 10:22 PM
Does anyone smell a real bad season for the Flubs?

We can only hope! :smile:

mulvaskills
01-05-2005, 09:23 AM
THe fifth starter is Glendon Rusch and Ryan Dempster is supposed to be the closer but Borowski, Hawkins and Farnsworth will most likely get a shot.

veeter
01-05-2005, 11:26 AM
I believe the Cubune is cutting payroll from the looks of their lack of moves.

JKryl
01-05-2005, 12:11 PM
And, let's not forget an angry and pouting Sammy. This is going to be a great year.

Ol' No. 2
01-05-2005, 12:18 PM
Does anyone smell a real bad season for the Flubs?

We can only hope! :smile:That's just the normal urine smell coming from the north side.

HomeFish
01-05-2005, 12:22 PM
I wouldn't exactly call having Prior/Wood/Zambrano/Maddux being "screwed". They have a better rotation than most teams, the White Sox included.

They can still go out and sign Beltran and/or Magglio. Even if they don't, they're still favorites for their division. I'd love to proclaim that they are screwed, but you just can't do that at this point.

maurice
01-05-2005, 12:27 PM
It all comes down to health. The cubs had a more talented roster at the end of last season but still finished third. Minus Clement, Alou, etc. and with no significant offseason acquisitions to date, they badly need full, healthy seasons from Prior and Wood. We'll see if that materializes, but, given their history, cub fans with more than five brain cells should be pretty upset if they miss out on Beltran.

cbrownson13
01-05-2005, 12:27 PM
I've heard recent talks of them signing Burnitz to play left field. I think their success depends on the play of Sosa, Patterson, and Garciaparra. If they can have good seasons I think they will take the division. Assuming that Prior bounces back. However, Sosa being on the team after all that has happened could be a huge problem.

Flight #24
01-05-2005, 12:30 PM
I wouldn't exactly call having Prior/Wood/Zambrano/Maddux being "screwed". They have a better rotation than most teams, the White Sox included.

They can still go out and sign Beltran and/or Magglio. Even if they don't, they're still favorites for their division. I'd love to proclaim that they are screwed, but you just can't do that at this point.
Favorites? With that offense? ST Louis is the favorite by far. If Houston retains Beltran & Rocket, Cubs will be in 3d.

Baby Fisk
01-05-2005, 12:40 PM
I wouldn't exactly call having Prior/Wood/Zambrano/Maddux being "screwed". They have a better rotation than most teams, the White Sox included.

They can still go out and sign Beltran and/or Magglio. Even if they don't, they're still favorites for their division. I'd love to proclaim that they are screwed, but you just can't do that at this point.The day you proclaim the Cubbies screwed, will be the day I eat my keyboard. Have you gotten around to declaring them screwed for 2004 yet? It's okay, you can say it: they are screwed (for 2004).

DaveIsHere
01-05-2005, 03:11 PM
:dtroll: I'm not sure how you can say the Cubs are screwed. They weren't bad last year. Disappointing, yes. Bad, no (until the last 2 weeks of the season that is). They did have a better record than the Sox and were in the playoff race until the end. The Cubs haven't made significant additions yet, but they have retained Nomar, Walker, and Rusch, three of their better players last season who were eligible for free agency. They got rid of Alou and Merker, who although productive on paper, were a big part of the dumb baseball and bad chemistry that caused the Cubs to be distracted much of the season. They still however, have Sosa and Dusty, the other side of the dumb baseball/bad chemistry equation. The Cubs offense is solid, and to be honest, probably better than the Sox. They have Lee, Ramirez, Nomar, Walker, Barrett, Patterson, and Sammy who are all solid offensively and, for the most part, equal or superior to their Sox counterpart (with the exception of Konerko). They also have a strong starting rotation even with Rusch or a rookie as their #5. The bullpen has not been upgraded, and defense is so-so. I don't see them cutting payroll. They will likely be near $100 million to start the season. If they make no more additions, they have financial flexibility to add a key player or two at the trading deadline. Just my opinion, but I think they are far from screwed and have the potential for a good season if the top of their rotation stays healthy.:dtroll:

Blueprint1
01-05-2005, 03:11 PM
I'm not sure how you can say the Cubs are screwed. They weren't bad last year. Disappointing, yes. Bad, no (until the last 2 weeks of the season that is). They did have a better record than the Sox and were in the playoff race until the end. The Cubs haven't made significant additions yet, but they have retained Nomar, Walker, and Rusch, three of their better players last season who were eligible for free agency. They got rid of Alou and Merker, who although productive on paper, were a big part of the dumb baseball and bad chemistry that caused the Cubs to be distracted much of the season. They still however, have Sosa and Dusty, the other side of the dumb baseball/bad chemistry equation. The Cubs offense is solid, and to be honest, probably better than the Sox. They have Lee, Ramirez, Nomar, Walker, Barrett, Patterson, and Sammy who are all solid offensively and, for the most part, equal or superior to their Sox counterpart (with the exception of Konerko). They also have a strong starting rotation even with Rusch or a rookie as their #5. The bullpen has not been upgraded, and defense is so-so. I don't see them cutting payroll. They will likely be near $100 million to start the season. If they make no more additions, they have financial flexibility to add a key player or two at the trading deadline. Just my opinion, but I think they are far from screwed and have the potential for a good season if the top of their rotation stays healthy.
Funny how most of your posts are about the cubs or former cubs.

Cowch44
01-05-2005, 03:14 PM
They have Lee, Ramirez, Nomar, Walker, Barrett, Patterson, and Sammy who are all solid offensively and, for the most part, equal or superior to their Sox counterpart (with the exception of Konerko).
That reminded me of my awful dream I had last night, we traded Konerko to the flubs for Barret.:whiner:

Whitesox029
01-05-2005, 03:25 PM
I wouldn't exactly call having Prior/Wood/Zambrano/Maddux being "screwed". They have a better rotation than most teams, the White Sox included.

They can still go out and sign Beltran and/or Magglio. Even if they don't, they're still favorites for their division. I'd love to proclaim that they are screwed, but you just can't do that at this point. Favorites? I think that's going to to the other extreme a bit don't you? Remember that last season the Cardinals had the division wrapped up by the trading deadline--without Mark Mulder. Their only other change is Eckstein in for Renteria, only a small downgrade IMO. The Cubs will not win their division. As for the wild card, I believe someone already mentioned that if Houston can resign both Beltran and Clemens, we're talking 3rd again. Plus there's New York to contend with if they sign Beltran instead. Now picture Beltran singing with Houston and Maggs in NY, with Sammy staying around in the position of resident tumor. Prospects not looking too good for the Cubs.

Baby Fisk
01-05-2005, 04:27 PM
I'm a Chicago baseball fan. I follow both the Cubs and Sox. I'm more of a lurker than a poster. My posts are often about the Cubs to offer some balance. I actually find the Cubs hatred here quite amusing.AAAAAA! UICJASON RETURNS! :o:


Help! Mods! HELLLLLLP!

maurice
01-05-2005, 05:16 PM
The [cubs] weren't bad last year.So third place is good?

they have retained Nomar, Walker, and Rusch, three of their better players last season who were eligible for free agency.You don't get credit for retaining some of your own free agents while letting more productive ones slip away. Besides, Walker was the backup 2B, Rusch had a career year as the #6 starter, and Nomar signed a one-year deal because nobody else was willing to give more to such a questionable player. Meanwhile, they already lost their most productive offensive player, a good starting pitcher, and a badly needed relief pitcher.

The Cubs offense is solid, and to be honest, probably better than the Sox.:smokin:

Lee and Ramirez are very good. Everybody else is a question mark going into 2005.

They also have a strong starting rotationI heard this song last year. The rotation is very good if Prior and Wood pitch to their ability. That's a really big "if."

The bullpen has not been upgradedTalk about an understatement. Their bullpen is worse than last year, when it was a very serious problem.

defense is so-soThey may have the worst defensive middle IF in all of baseball. Sosa's is a scene out of Keystone Cops in RF, and nobody knows who's going to play LF.

[The cubs] have the potential for a good season if the top of their rotation stays healthy."Potential" and $1.50 get you a cup of coffee. They also have the "potential" to have a pitching staff with a lot of holes, resulting in another third-place finish (or worse if Sammy and Dusty manage to sink the ship).

Mohoney
01-05-2005, 08:24 PM
Even if they don't, they're still favorites for their division.
How exactly are they favorites over St. Louis?

SoxFan76
01-05-2005, 08:27 PM
How exactly are they favorites over St. Louis?
And Houston. And the Reds aren't exactly a pushover anymore.

Blueprint1
01-05-2005, 09:23 PM
All i was stating is that if he is such a "Chicago baseball fan" why is that all his posts are about cub related matters. Sounds like a cubs fan posting on a sox site.

OEO Magglio
01-05-2005, 09:56 PM
Amen.

While I don't particularly like the Cubs or most of their audience, their uniform still says "Chicago" on it.
So what......